28 DAYS LATER marked a salient reinvention of the zombie genre, providing an infection in the blood that turns people into enraged homicidal maniacs. 28 WEEKS LATER was the polished but less punchy and visceral follow-up. With 28 YEARS LATER, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland team up again to revisit this sad universe, returning to its grungy, episodic roots with a new film that explores fresh weird and blood-soaked terrain.
28 DAYS LATER was a big influence for my zombie novels back in the day. From the gritty look and music to the desolation to the terror of the infected to the sheer desperation of the survivors, I loved it. I liked 28 WEEKS LATER–especially the insane opening scene–but didn’t love it. Tonally, it was so different, and when the SHTF, it ended too quickly for me. So, I went into 28 YEARS LATER ready for anything, especially after watching the off-the-hook trailer with the wild song where an actor recites Rudyard Kipling’s poem “Boots.”
Anyway, England has fallen due to a blood-borne virus that causes homicidal rage and shedding blood. The infected immediately either kill you or infect you. The authorities disinfected the island and tried to bring the survivors back to repopulate London, but a fresh outbreak destroyed the settlement. The virus was pushed back from mainland Europe, and the UK is permanently quarantined, leaving the human survivors to fend for themselves.
In a community surviving on a small island off mainland UK, 12-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams, who pulls his weight as the lead) lives with his father and ailing mother. The community has a strange culture with traditions around conquering death, including masks and boys going ashore to kill an infected. When Spike learns of an isolated and possibly insane doctor tending a perpetual bonfire of the dead, he sets out in the hopes of getting his mother cured, learning to respect instead of fear death in the process. An apocalyptic bildungsroman. Along the way, Spike encounters various survivors and variants on the infected as the Rage virus has mutated.
Overall, it was fun and weird and different, throwing out the fast-food menu of the franchise for a far grungier vision that hearkens back to the original. At the end, Spike meets up with someone in a setup for a continuation of the story, which I would definitely watch.
As far as criticisms, some of the editing is heavy-handed, and Boyle’s trick of occasionally freeze-framing during action scenes doesn’t work for me. The first act has cutaways to British documentary war footage and old movies of medieval warfare, which was odd and unnecessary. The overall story’s episodic nature is similar to Garland’s CIVIL WAR. Story wise, I think it would have been better to convey more tangibly what Spike is rejecting about his home and why beyond the philosophical theme, and make him a little older. If it’s a simple story set in an apocalyptic world, they should have leaned on it. Also, I’m surprised Spike finds a home in the wild world when it’s obvious he very likely won’t survive–it’s not really clear he understands and accepts this. I don’t want to overthink a zombie movie, but this one does seem to reach for something bigger.
Anyway, no matter. Overall, I thought 28 YEARS LATER was a worthy addition to the Rage universe. It didn’t trigger a hungry sense of wonder like the first movie did and it wasn’t quite as visceral, but it was weird, punchy, exciting, and a fun ride.
Leave a Reply